It's hard to know who to believe anymore. Results of studies are often highly correlated to the motivations of those who funded the tests!

Personally, I prefer my Salmon to be wild and my Catfish to be farm raised. Salmon is a clean fish, and the wild Salmon just has more flavor. Bottom feeders in the wild eat just about anything, and the farm raised Catfish tastes much cleaner.

It would seem that some farm-raised sources have improved in the past decade or two. This seems to be particularly true of many fish farms in the US. I have noticed in recent years that some farmed fish contains higher levels of omega 3's (Ω 3's) than their wild counterparts. Sometimes, but not always, farming fish reduced the threat of over-fishing wild fish. OTOH, other problems still persist with farm-raised fish, especially fish from the North Atlantic and many other of parts of the world.

The OP table is a bit misleading with respect to Nutrition. Note that Ω 3's are a type of fat. The table suggests that wild fish contains higher levels of Ω 3's (which is not always true these days) and less fats. It says that farm raised fish contain less Ω 3's and more fats. From this we cannot tell if it means that the overall fat content is less in wild fish or if it means that the fats other than Ω 3 fats is less.

For a more accurate picture of the current pro/cons of farm-fish vs wild-caught fish refer to the following sources. In some cases the consumption of farm-raised fish is preferable to wild-caught fish. For the most part, I would probably avoid eating tilapia on a regular basis -- especially tilapia farmed in China and other parts of SE Asia. These fish are often very low in Ω 3 fats and very high in Ω 6 fats. High levels of consumption of these fish would tend to throw off the dietary balance of these fats quite a bit.

The more I read about the entire fish industry - wild caught or farm raised - the less inclined I am to eat any of it. The best sustainably wild caught stuff is too expensive for my budget and the farm raised stuff seems to be an environmental nightmare along with other issues. And then there's the mercury...

Argh. Argh to all of it.

__________________
Pros should stop wasting money on coaches and doctors and just read the experts on this forum.

As I mentioned earlier, heard that some stores sell farm raised as wild caught!!
Now how can we detect this?
Is there a standard? like (not to get into org.milk discussion here) USDA seal for organic milk

^^ No, you can't detect it. You can only hope someone involved rats them out, as happened a few decades ago when a grocery store chain in NYC was found to be passing off non-kosher chickens as (more expensive) kosher chickens.

As I mentioned earlier, heard that some stores sell farm raised as wild caught!!
Now how can we detect this?
Is there a standard? like (not to get into org.milk discussion here) USDA seal for organic milk

The following story contains some suggestions from Consumer Reports...

Whether or not you think there is industrial/institutional falsification of study data on the long term health effects of eating gmo foodstuff, be at least aware that % of salmon sourced from from US and other countries may being begin genetically modified if the FDA and other countries regulatory bodies approve it (and we all know FDA has a history in recent decades of being a beacon of ethics).

^^ reminds me of the people who complain about irradiated food but use a microwave at home (most irradiation of food is done in the microwave wavelength range). Truth be told, the sorts of genetic modifications being done in the food industry seem unlikely to produce changes that are harmful. Genetically modifying cattle for example to produce fewer fat cells sounds like a good thing, and there isn't evidence of harm. Moreover, those who moan ab out genetic modification would be asked to remember on this Thanksgiving day that the primary goal of food industry genetics is to produce more and less costly food for a world in which a great deal of hunger still exists. Tissue culture has progressed to the point where it will soon be commercially feasible to grow hamburger meat in a lab; scoff at this only if you have made sure hunger has been fully resolved.

(not sure what data re the FDA is being suggested here --- none, it would seem --- but half of all initial submission New Drug Applications in the U.S. are rejected by the FDA. Companies can then re-submit, and re-submit again, but over twenty percent are never accepted after multiple rounds of request for approval.)

salmon’s off-season (November, December and March), we discovered that 13 of 23 salmons labeled as wild turned out to be farm-raised

Farmed salmon are raised in pens, where they eat meal made from other fish that may have lived in polluted waters. As a result, they tend to accumulate more PCBs and dioxins than wild salmon. These industrial chemicals can cause cancer and reproductive problems, are fat-soluble and can be stored in the body’s fat tissue for years.

I'm assuming that #2 is true for all (other than salmon) farm raised fish

So the thing I'm not sure is... what quantities (PCBs and dioxins) are in there? ==> Does having occasional farm raised fish (say once or twice a week) outweigh the negatives?

^^ reminds me of the people who complain about irradiated food but use a microwave at home (most irradiation of food is done in the microwave wavelength range). Truth be told, the sorts of genetic modifications being done in the food industry seem unlikely to produce changes that are harmful. Genetically modifying cattle for example to produce fewer fat cells sounds like a good thing, and there isn't evidence of harm. Moreover, those who moan ab out genetic modification would be asked to remember on this Thanksgiving day that the primary goal of food industry genetics is to produce more and less costly food for a world in which a great deal of hunger still exists. Tissue culture has progressed to the point where it will soon be commercially feasible to grow hamburger meat in a lab; scoff at this only if you have made sure hunger has been fully resolved.

Sure. That is not the issue though. The issue is how much the industry is resisting to label GMO food as such. They spent a huge amount of money to defeat Prop 37 in California. If their goal is to solve the world's hunger, why not just tell us if the food is GMO or not? A lot of underhand tactics were used.